So a game full of violent morally bankrupt protagonists, from a morally bankrupt company that aggrandizes violence, written for a morally bankrupt generation that thrives on glorifying violence. There's a shocker.

Except that for some people, knowing that these characters are morally reprehensible and lack the complexity of some other Rockstar characters is enough to know they won't like it. That's why subjective reviews are sometimes valuable. I don't care if a game is executed perfectly from a technical perspective. If the narrative doesn't interest me, then I won't want to play.

But not everyone feels that way. Some people don't care about the narrative and just want to have fun in a massive sandbox and don't care about the characters as people. That's just fine.

And that's why reviews like this are the most useful. Someone like me reads this review and can tell that this is almost certainly a game I won't enjoy playing, while someone like you can read this review and know that those aspects won't bother you and so you will probably enjoy the game since the reviewer said that the rest of the game is technically masterful.

I'd say that's pretty much exactly what a review ought to be.

But untill you play the game you will not know whether or not you consider the characters to be too violent or if the review is over reacting and just touchy to violence in general, It isn't representative of the game and is just his own opinion. Granted if you know alot about the reviewer his opinion might be worth something but to most people visiting this site, they have no idea who the reviewer is, don't know him personally and couldn't care less about his opinion, they just want to know about the game.

Well considering the reviewer used other Rockstar games to offer comparison, specifically referencing the differences between Niko and the protagonists of this game and the instances of the game that he cited as particularly disturbing, I'd say he did a perfectly acceptable job of elaborating on his points. Furthermore, practically every other reviewer I've seen for this game has praised just about everything except the characters and story. When it comes to Rockstar games, reviewers are always more interested in discussing the impressive gameplay and technical achievement while glossing over the narrative as "extra". "Red Dead Redemption" was praised all over the place and I actually hated it by the time I had gotten to the end. Not because it was too violent or anything like that but because the narrative just stopped working for me once the plot took a detour to Mexico and the ending was just plain bad. Of course, no one who reviewed it told me that because it was just so damn technically impressive, so I wasted a week playing a game that felt like a chore because I was convinced that at a certain point it HAD to become "awesome", but in the end, I just hated it.

However, I really liked "L.A. Noire" because it appeared to be focused more about telling interesting stories with complex characters and the interrogation mechanic seemed interesting to me.

For me, it's not about whether or not GTA V is "too violent". It's about whether or not the characters have interesting arcs. If their motivations are more complex than just "make money and kill things". If there isn't more to them than that, I don't care how good GTA V is at immersing you in the experience of playing a trio of lowlife assholes without redeemable qualities. I just don't want to play a 100-hour game as three lowlife assholes.

But if you can point me to one of the many Perfect Score reviews that actually talks about how deep and interesting the characters are, maybe I'll take this reviewer with a grain of salt. So far though, every review I've read or watched has tap-danced around this aspect, instead deciding to talk about everything else. So this reviewer is really the only basis I have to judge the worth of the characters and the narrative. That and the trailers and gameplay footage I've seen that pretty much just reinforces what this reviewer says.

"GTA V's story is about irredeemable people doing unjustifiable things, but balances this against genuinely intriguing characters who, despite their stereotypical foundations, remain at least affable, even if they never stop being terrible. Each character has his own narrative arc, weaving in and out of a joint story that develops their relationship to each other, from uneasy allies to even less easy friends, and it's often hard not to sympathize with characters who, through all their murder and mayhem, ultimately wind up as rather sad and pathetic creatures."

GTA5's characters are violent as it is an integral part to conveying the story well

WarpZone:Remember when GTA was actually fun? Tooling around the city in a 2D car, watching convicts sprinkle out of a jail you just crashed into like chips from a slot machine? Or actually engaging storylines like Tha Ballad of Gay Tony? Now it's like the developers said, "Whelp, Retro City Rampage stole our fun, Just Cause stole our comedy, Saints Row stole damn near everything. What do we have left for an identity?" And someone shrugged and said "I guess Fox News associates us with violent crime?" And then they spent 5 years and 20 billion dollars making the most ZOMG REELZ VIOLENT CRIME GAMZORZ EVAR!!!oneone.

Seriously, though, there's no point in even looking surprised at this point. It's a new pointless console generation. These people equate polygons with "EMOTION!!!". That means every single title coming down the pipe is going to get brownification like you've never seen before. Everything has to be DARK and GRITTY because GRITTY = REAL! Just ask the most serious and legitimate decade evar, THE 90'S! Wait...

But untill you play the game you will not know whether or not you consider the characters to be too violent or if the review is over reacting and just touchy to violence in general, It isn't representative of the game and is just his own opinion. Granted if you know alot about the reviewer his opinion might be worth something but to most people visiting this site, they have no idea who the reviewer is, don't know him personally and couldn't care less about his opinion, they just want to know about the game.

Well considering the reviewer used other Rockstar games to offer comparison, specifically referencing the differences between Niko and the protagonists of this game and the instances of the game that he cited as particularly disturbing, I'd say he did a perfectly acceptable job of elaborating on his points. Furthermore, practically every other reviewer I've seen for this game has praised just about everything except the characters and story. When it comes to Rockstar games, reviewers are always more interested in discussing the impressive gameplay and technical achievement while glossing over the narrative as "extra". "Red Dead Redemption" was praised all over the place and I actually hated it by the time I had gotten to the end. Not because it was too violent or anything like that but because the narrative just stopped working for me once the plot took a detour to Mexico and the ending was just plain bad. Of course, no one who reviewed it told me that because it was just so damn technically impressive, so I wasted a week playing a game that felt like a chore because I was convinced that at a certain point it HAD to become "awesome", but in the end, I just hated it.

However, I really liked "L.A. Noire" because it appeared to be focused more about telling interesting stories with complex characters and the interrogation mechanic seemed interesting to me.

For me, it's not about whether or not GTA V is "too violent". It's about whether or not the characters have interesting arcs. If their motivations are more complex than just "make money and kill things". If there isn't more to them than that, I don't care how good GTA V is at immersing you in the experience of playing a trio of lowlife assholes without redeemable qualities. I just don't want to play a 100-hour game as three lowlife assholes.

But if you can point me to one of the many Perfect Score reviews that actually talks about how deep and interesting the characters are, maybe I'll take this reviewer with a grain of salt. So far though, every review I've read or watched has tap-danced around this aspect, instead deciding to talk about everything else. So this reviewer is really the only basis I have to judge the worth of the characters and the narrative. That and the trailers and gameplay footage I've seen that pretty much just reinforces what this reviewer says.

"GTA V's story is about irredeemable people doing unjustifiable things, but balances this against genuinely intriguing characters who, despite their stereotypical foundations, remain at least affable, even if they never stop being terrible. Each character has his own narrative arc, weaving in and out of a joint story that develops their relationship to each other, from uneasy allies to even less easy friends, and it's often hard not to sympathize with characters who, through all their murder and mayhem, ultimately wind up as rather sad and pathetic creatures."

GTA5's characters are violent as it is an integral part to conveying the story well

Again, it's not about the characters being violent. Booker DeWitt is a violent character. It's about me giving a crap about their motivations. And if all these characters have going for them is that they are nasty people, befriend nasty people, and then end up sad because they were nasty people... I'm sorry, but that REALLY doesn't sound like a game I would enjoy. It just doesn't.

And it's not that I can't find terrible people interesting. I absolutely love "Breaking Bad", but the benefit of that story is that you see the main character at the beginning, seemingly motivated by understandable human decisions that don't necessarily seem all that bad at first. But as of now, he's pretty much just as despicable as any of these characters seem to be. The difference is that, as far as I can tell, we never really see that human aspect of the GTA V characters, pretty much starting out with them already being ruthless criminals and ending with them being sad ruthless criminals.

I know the fun of a GTA game is in the roaming around and doing things and having fun and I totally get that and I'm fine with that and you can go have fun with that. But I'm not a sandbox gamer. I can only enjoy a sandbox if I find the characters that I'm playing with interesting and, even from Jim's positive descriptions, I can pretty much tell that these aren't characters that I would find interesting.

And I understand that this is pretty much exactly what Rockstar is going for. They WANT the game to be about straightforward criminals this time so that there's no pesky moral dissonance to get in the way of the player's gun-crazy fun times. And also because some people like stories about horrible people and find them interesting.

I'm not saying it's an objectively poorly-told story. It's just not the kind of story I want to play. And you might say that that shouldn't count against the game, but if a game fails to engage a player due to decisions made regarding the gameplay or narrative, it should affect the score if the reviewer felt it had a negative impact on their enjoyment and that it might have a similar effect on like-minded people. That's what makes this review good. And it's also what makes Jim's review good, because even though he ultimately gave it a positive review, his reasons made it clear that he's not looking for the same thing out of this experience that I am. Simple as that.

DVS BSTrD:As long as the hookers still die and the redneck laughs about it.

Bottom Line: A technical achievement, GTAV's driving and shooting gameplay in an excellently crafted open world is marred by a script that presents despicable characters as the protagonists.

Breaking Bad the videogame?

Recommendation: It's certainly fun to be the bad guy sometimes, but only buy Grand Theft Auto V if you're prepared to play as characters with no justifiable motivation for doing awful things to people.

SaneAmongInsane:Saints Row's The Boss- Kills Julius even though Julius was right in that The Boss had become a monster (and the saints were just Vice Kings that wore purple), murders for fun, cripples the feed dog guitarist just to "send a message" to his friend, tricks Maero into killing his own girlfriend, lets the Ronin Kid be buried alive by Johnny Gat. Could of selflessly sacrificed himself to save all his friends and restore the earth, but rejects the offer even though the Evil Alien is right and the world would be better with out him.

But it's okay, because the character is motivated by.... What? He's just after power, and more power.

Not to mention the feud with Maero only got started because of an an argument over who gets a cut. For that, he stole radioactive waste and mixed it into tattoo ink, scarring Maero.

The Boss was a dick from the beginning, and his motives in SR2 were even dickish-er.

And GOD, I have to get SR2 up and running on my PC. I miss that game so much. I only regret the lack of DLC (and the fact that it takes some work to get it working decently).

...Where were we? Oh yeah, the Saints Row 2 review. >.>

Seriously, I'd rather see an asshole than an asshole with a thin veneer of woobie or whatever.

Can't say i agree with the reviewers opinion that playing unsympathetic and actual villainous characters is some sort of "step back" in gaming art *overdramatic hand gestures* I mean jeez, cut the drama, some of us wouldn't mind playing actual evil pricks for a change especially if its in keeping with a suitably prick world! This doesnt sound like a feel good game in any way but it shouldn't be looked down for it anymore then it should be looked down for being a depressive reminder of the worst of our own world.

Psychobabble:So a game full of violent morally bankrupt protagonists, from a morally bankrupt company that aggrandizes violence, written for a morally bankrupt generation that thrives on glorifying violence. There's a shocker.

You know what, opinions are opinions, and reviewers can say whatever they want I guess.

But people posting here about how they're glad that this review is dragging down the average, specifically because that person thinks that the GTA series is overrated, are equally as foolish as people who think that the score should be higher because they like the game.

Reviews aren't supposed to match the reader's opinion, either high or low. If you don't like the game, don't get excited when other people drag the average down, because it just looks petty. If you do like the game, don't worry about one negative-ish review, because it just looks petty.

The install business rules out owners of the 4GB console. This alone is quite a bad move. Along with, I believe, Halo 4 (or was it Reach) which also required more space than the 4GB console could provide, this is now the 2nd game which isn't available to all console owners. I'm sorry to say this is wrong wrong wrong and defeats the entire purpose of console, the main benefit to owning one (initial cost aside). All owners of a given console should be able to play all games for that console, without exception.

Lol the comments to this review are pathetic, this is why The Escapist is the cesspool of the internet with Betas who never had their balls drop.

Greg, you are a GAME REVIEWER not a commentator for Fox News or MSNBC, as a VIDEO GAME, GTA V is a masterpiece and it was able to pull of everything it aimed its sights on. You are only docking the score because you are maintaining a holier than thou moral ground which SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW. Your job is to not commentate on morals but review a video game for what it is, its graphics, game play, is it effective in its story telling, etc.

As for the rest of the escapist community, grow a fucking pair seriously. Literally half of the escapist community comprise of white knights thinking they are the main protagonist in a rated G JRPG or something.

If a feminist told the escapist community that they are all scum for being male, and should castrate themselves to atone for the sins of their male ancestors, I wouldn't be surprised most of the escapist would comply since you guys are all beta manchildren.

Everybody's offended by the part of the review that discusses the characters, but what about the satire and vanity comments? When GTAIV came out it was packed to the brim with the same ridiculous billboard ads, same childish pokes at politics and the like, executed by the same exaggerated talk show host personas, and had the same pedestrians who would answer their phones and yell ME! ME! ME! And yet, the previous game was back then referred to as the absolute smelliest and most solid of 'the shit'. The sequel pulls the same joke all over again and suddenly "WOAH! It's not funny anymore. Sorry if we gave you the impression that it worked last time."

Also one more thing. When Max Payne 3 pulled the brutal unbearable murder violence card, it was called some of the most artistic stuff, like, ever. All of a sudden, virtual killing that elicits a reaction is pointless and nihilistic?(Hotline Miami also comes to mind)

It should be considered a fucking step forward for video games as a whole if you can't enjoy murder in a Grand Theft Auto game. I think that says a lot.

Look guys, it's his review. His opinion. If he likes DA2 enough to give it a 5/5 it's his right. And if he likes GTA V just enough to give it a 3.5/5, again, it's his right. He isn't telling you how you should feel about GTA V. You can't criticize someone's opinion of a subjective experience. Which is what a review essentially is. Personally, I think the game is flawless. It's more than I wanted it to be. The characters are finally fun again, unlike in GTA IV which is a boring piece of shit IMO. If someone thinks otherwise, fine. Whatever. It doesn't ruin my fun.

I can understand Greg. He's kind of right about these characters. I think they're all fun, but I can't really relate to any of them, but to me that's not an issue. It's still a first for a GTA game because even in Vice City I found Tommy's motivation to be very believable. And despite being borderline psychopathic, he was easy to relate to. If someone puts a lot of weight on character motivation and player's ability to relate to the character, this can be off-putting. That's why I never intend to buy another God of War game. I fuckin' hate Kratos.

Andante:Lol the comments to this review are pathetic, this is why The Escapist is the cesspool of the internet with Betas who never had their balls drop.

Greg, you are a GAME REVIEWER not a commentator for Fox News or MSNBC, as a VIDEO GAME, GTA V is a masterpiece and it was able to pull of everything it aimed its sights on. You are only docking the score because you are maintaining a holier than thou moral ground which SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW. Your job is to not commentate on morals but review a video game for what it is, its graphics, game play, is it effective in its story telling, etc.

While I agree that morals shouldn't be in a review of anything that could be considered art, this review isn't short of actually good points and critiques.And although I still didn't play it, I really doubt the FIFTH installment of a game based on mindlessly killing people should be considered a "masterpiece". Very good, yes. Even great, maybe. But certainly not a masterpiece.And just in case you thought otherwise, no, I don't consider pretentious pseudo-games like Gone Home a masterpiece either.

As for the rest of the escapist community, grow a fucking pair seriously. Literally half of the escapist community comprise of white knights thinking they are the main protagonist in a rated G JRPG or something.

If a feminist told the escapist community that they are all scum for being male, and should castrate themselves to atone for the sins of their male ancestors, I wouldn't be surprised most of the escapist would comply since you guys are all beta manchildren.

While I agree with the sentiment of the review, what strikes me as odd is that this isn't the first time I've been unsettled by GTA protagonists. Nico Bellic's was a step in a 'gritty' direction that made frivolous killing feel very uncomfortable. Equally several points in CJ's scripted storyline felt gratuitous.

Perhaps this is a point all of us reach, at different times - when we finally start taking stock of the morality of what we're being coerced into agreeing with. It just seems that you've arrived at the table a little late, and I find it strange that you are calling up these problems without stacking them up against the same problems in previous iterations, let alone the serious moral issues at play in Saints Row 4 which you offer as a counterpoint. Just because that game screams 'DON'T WORRY IT'S ALL A JOKE' doesn't cure it of its moral ills, and neither - for me at least - did it make the experience any less uncomfortable or awkward.

For me, I feel that I've come out the other side of this debate. I've accepted that the intention of games like GTA is not to make moral or even narrative sense, but to offer flimsy, gutter-humour plotlines that are merely vehicles for outrageous set-piece missions. Because of that I am expecting to be able to enjoy the gameplay and worry less about the moral quandaries. (Please bear in mind this is coming from someone who has always considered themselves a snobbish game story connoisseur in the past).

Would it be fair to suggest that your issue is perhaps more with the unnecessary narrative constraints rather than purely the morality of the game? A lot of your moral qualms seem to be caught up in what you are 'forced' to do and witness, and you also mention niggling issues like Michael driving in scripted missions when you would have perhaps picked Franklin. It'll be interesting to hear your thoughts on GTA online when that turns up - maybe what this genre really needs is no definable protagonists at all...

As for Los Santos coming across to you as vapid and depressing, frankly I'm glad that was included, because that is exactly what LA was like for me and its nice to think I can go into that world as a complete madman and shake the people of Los Santos out of their self-absorbed stupor.

Anyway, I appreciated reading the review and I'm glad that you're willing to give game story enough weight to cast an influence on your overall impression, there isn't enough of that around.

Andante:Literally half of the escapist community comprise of white knights thinking they are the main protagonist in a rated G JRPG or something.

You're conflating two issues.1. Whether the considerations of the reviewer are considerations for the audience.2. Whether the considerations of the reviewer should be considerations for any review.

Most of the criticism here has been about point 2, and the defense of the review has focused on that. Again, it's been about whether the review is valid rather than sound. I think it's a good review and he's right to dock it points if he dislikes the violence, but I'm going to buy it and enjoy it anyway.

Andante:Lol the comments to this review are pathetic, this is why The Escapist is the cesspool of the internet with Betas who never had their balls drop.

Greg, you are a GAME REVIEWER not a commentator for Fox News or MSNBC, as a VIDEO GAME, GTA V is a masterpiece and it was able to pull of everything it aimed its sights on. You are only docking the score because you are maintaining a holier than thou moral ground which SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW. Your job is to not commentate on morals but review a video game for what it is, its graphics, game play, is it effective in its story telling, etc.

While I agree that morals shouldn't be in a review of anything that could be considered art, this review isn't short of actually good points and critiques.And although I still didn't play it, I really doubt the FIFTH installment of a game based on mindlessly killing people should be considered a "masterpiece". Very good, yes. Even great, maybe. But certainly not a masterpiece.And just in case you thought otherwise, no, I don't consider pretentious pseudo-games like Gone Home a masterpiece either.

As for the rest of the escapist community, grow a fucking pair seriously. Literally half of the escapist community comprise of white knights thinking they are the main protagonist in a rated G JRPG or something.

If a feminist told the escapist community that they are all scum for being male, and should castrate themselves to atone for the sins of their male ancestors, I wouldn't be surprised most of the escapist would comply since you guys are all beta manchildren.

I can't see what this has to do with the review though.

There is a reason why people still play GTAIV and why GTA games have such long life spans, and here is a hint, it has nothing to do with the Story.

Maybe, just maybe, the draw of most GTA games is though to it being an open sandbox world with tons and tons of activities and areas to explore.

That's why I am mocking you and your escapist community, you guys argue on moral grounds just to feel superior even though to everyone else, it's a complete joke.

Just like how everyone here missed the part of GTA 5 being one of the greatest SANDBOX games to be released for this generation, but instead here we have a EPEEN battle with everyone trying to outdo each other in a pathetic attempt to portray themselves to see who is the most reasonable progressive free thinker... disgusting.

Greg, you are a GAME REVIEWER not a commentator for Fox News or MSNBC, as a VIDEO GAME, GTA V is a masterpiece and it was able to pull of everything it aimed its sights on. You are only docking the score because you are maintaining a holier than thou moral ground which SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW. Your job is to not commentate on morals but review a video game for what it is, its graphics, game play, is it effective in its story telling, etc.

And a game which promotes its story and characters should get graded on its story and characters. So Greg seems to be doing what one should do in this scenario.

Frankster:Can't say i agree with the reviewers opinion that playing unsympathetic and actual villainous characters is some sort of "step back" in gaming art *overdramatic hand gestures* I mean jeez, cut the drama, some of us wouldn't mind playing actual evil pricks for a change especially if its in keeping with a suitably prick world!

Psychobabble:So a game full of violent morally bankrupt protagonists, from a morally bankrupt company that aggrandizes violence, written for a morally bankrupt generation that thrives on glorifying violence. There's a shocker.

Wow, so much hate, care to justify what you're saying?

Maybe they're just psychobabbling.

OT: Man, what a tough week for the Escapist. First Grey and then Greg. Still, despite GTA V no doubt being a great game, the low score is rather telling of what's probably the game's biggest problem: motivation.

I won't psychobabble too much myself because it'll be a long, long time before I'm able to play the game. Mostly, I just like sitting here and watching the shitstorm.

Andante:Lol the comments to this review are pathetic, this is why The Escapist is the cesspool of the internet with Betas who never had their balls drop.

Greg, you are a GAME REVIEWER not a commentator for Fox News or MSNBC, as a VIDEO GAME, GTA V is a masterpiece and it was able to pull of everything it aimed its sights on. You are only docking the score because you are maintaining a holier than thou moral ground which SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW. Your job is to not commentate on morals but review a video game for what it is, its graphics, game play, is it effective in its story telling, etc.

As for the rest of the escapist community, grow a fucking pair seriously. Literally half of the escapist community comprise of white knights thinking they are the main protagonist in a rated G JRPG or something.

If a feminist told the escapist community that they are all scum for being male, and should castrate themselves to atone for the sins of their male ancestors, I wouldn't be surprised most of the escapist would comply since you guys are all beta manchildren.

CHRIST, someone REALLY ticked you off didn't they?

You do realise that a review IS SOMEBODY'S OPINION, RIGHT?

And why, pray tell, can this apparent MASTERPIECE not be criticized on moral grounds? (which, you know, it wasn't anyway, but let's go with you on this one)

I'm not even sure WHAT THAT LAST half WAS ABOUT, so I'm not EVEN GOING TO BOTHER there.

Anyway, it just LOOKS LIKE you're mad that SOMEBODY DIDN'T AGREE with your opinion (whether you've played it, or not. My guess is not. Even though it did break release)

Andante:Lol the comments to this review are pathetic, this is why The Escapist is the cesspool of the internet with Betas who never had their balls drop.

Greg, you are a GAME REVIEWER not a commentator for Fox News or MSNBC, as a VIDEO GAME, GTA V is a masterpiece and it was able to pull of everything it aimed its sights on. You are only docking the score because you are maintaining a holier than thou moral ground which SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW. Your job is to not commentate on morals but review a video game for what it is, its graphics, game play, is it effective in its story telling, etc.

While I agree that morals shouldn't be in a review of anything that could be considered art, this review isn't short of actually good points and critiques.And although I still didn't play it, I really doubt the FIFTH installment of a game based on mindlessly killing people should be considered a "masterpiece". Very good, yes. Even great, maybe. But certainly not a masterpiece.And just in case you thought otherwise, no, I don't consider pretentious pseudo-games like Gone Home a masterpiece either.

As for the rest of the escapist community, grow a fucking pair seriously. Literally half of the escapist community comprise of white knights thinking they are the main protagonist in a rated G JRPG or something.

If a feminist told the escapist community that they are all scum for being male, and should castrate themselves to atone for the sins of their male ancestors, I wouldn't be surprised most of the escapist would comply since you guys are all beta manchildren.

I can't see what this has to do with the review though.

There is a reason why people still play GTAIV and why GTA games have such long life spans, and here is a hint, it has nothing to do with the Story.

Maybe, just maybe, the draw of most GTA games is though to it being an open sandbox world with tons and tons of activities and areas to explore.

If you weren't a zombie white knight like the rest of the escapist masses, then you would realize this. That's why I am mocking you and your escapist community, you guys argue on moral grounds just to feel superior even though to everyone else you guys are a joke.

Just like how everyone here missed the part of GTA 5 being one of the greatest SANDBOX games to be released for this generation, but instead here we have a EPEEN battle with everyone trying to outdo each other in a pathetic attempt to portray themselves to see who is the most reasonable progressive free thinker... disgusting.

I don't know... Saints Row 4 was pretty epic, in terms of sandbox.

I mean just being to have a car form around you, rather than having to go to a garage and being able to race around the map.

There is a reason why people still play GTAIV and why GTA games have such long life spans, and here is a hint, it has nothing to do with the Story.

Maybe, just maybe, the draw of most GTA games is though to it being an open sandbox world with tons and tons of activities and areas to explore.

Ok? I already knew about this. In fact, I've only completed Vice City's story, although I've (extensively) played every GTA to date except Liberty City and IV.I don't see what does this have to do with anything. Just because it is "an open sandbox world with tons and tons of activities and areas to explore." doesn't make it a masterpiece. There are tons of games like that. Yeah, it may be better than those games, I think we can agree on that, but it certainly isn't innovative, it doesn't bring anything new to the table.Also, this argument doesn't actually invalidate the review, it actually agrees with it.

If you weren't a zombie white knight like the rest of the escapist masses, then you would realize this. That's why I am mocking you and your escapist community, you guys argue on moral grounds just to feel superior even though to everyone else you guys are a joke.

I think you couldn't be farther from the truth calling me a white knight, but ok. I don't consider myself part of the "escapist community", I rarely post here and usually disagree with other users. Anyway, this is off-topic.

Just like how everyone here missed the part of GTA 5 being one of the greatest SANDBOX games to be released for this generation, but instead here we have a EPEEN battle with everyone trying to outdo each other in a pathetic attempt to portray themselves to see who is the most reasonable progressive free thinker... disgusting.

Actually most people here (from the comments I read anyway) think that the reviewer is wrong, and agree with you. If anything, they are discussing whether morality should be into a review or not.

Greg, you are a GAME REVIEWER not a commentator for Fox News or MSNBC, as a VIDEO GAME, GTA V is a masterpiece and it was able to pull of everything it aimed its sights on. You are only docking the score because you are maintaining a holier than thou moral ground which SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW. Your job is to not commentate on morals but review a video game for what it is, its graphics, game play, is it effective in its story telling, etc.

And a game which promotes its story and characters should get graded on its story and characters. So Greg seems to be doing what one should do in this scenario.

Under your logic it's perfectly fine for a game reviewer to give kingdom hearts 1+2, both 5/10 because they absolutely could not relate to the main character. I know I would, I find most JRPG characters completely unrelatable especially if they are male and absolutely detest the cliche stories I find in most JRPGs, under these circumstances a majority of all JRPGS I would rate between 4/10 - 6/10.

However I would never do that, because I know that it was the game's intention to have such whiny characters with emo issues since their target audience is into that kind of stuff. So in a sense I would instead rate these JRPGs highly, because despite ME not having any relation to the characters or story, they are effective story mediums for their TARGET AUDIENCE.

It's quite obvious Greg Tito was not the target audience of GTA V, however greg's ego did not allow him to admit that, instead he went on a tangent writing a review screaming HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I AM GREG, I'M SUCH A REASONABLE AND KIND HUMAN BEING, SEE HOW RESPONSIBLE I AM!?!?!

Under your logic it's perfectly fine for a game reviewer to give kingdom hearts 1+2, both 5/10 because they absolutely could not relate to the main character. I know I would, I find most JRPG characters completely unrelatable especially if they are male and absolutely detest the cliche stories I find in most JRPGs, under these circumstances a majority of all JRPGS I would rate between 4/10 - 6/10.

However I would never do that, because I know that it was the game's intention to have such whiny characters with emo issues since their target audience is into that kind of stuff. So in a sense I would instead rate these JRPGs highly, because despite ME not having any relation to the characters or story, they are effective story mediums for their TARGET AUDIENCE.

It's quite obvious Greg Tito was not the target audience of GTA V, however greg's ego did not allow him to admit that, instead he went on a tangent writing a review screaming HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I AM GREG, I'M SUCH A REASONABLE AND KIND HUMAN BEING, SEE HOW RESPONSIBLE I AM!?!?!

So you're suggesting that game reviews should only be written with an audience in mind of people who would like the game? To paraphrase Jim Sterling, "If you like this game, then you'll find it enjoyable. If you don't like this game, you won't."

Seems to me that rather demand some ridiculous detached objectivity in the review, it makes sense to find a reviewer with the same taste as yours and read their reviews. That way, you'll know whether it's good within the context of things you like.

It's not like they're measuring the tensile strength of a piece of rope - it's about whether they enjoyed a freakin' game.